Now, to be frank, while I believe in a strong defense, I am uncomfortable that the United States alone accounts for about 40% of worldwide defense spending. I’d like to scrutinize our defense spending, but I’m not going to lie about it with convenient numbers.

(MARCH 2011 UPDATE: The bigoted atheist videos have been removed from Facebook.)

(CORRECTION: The site mentioned at bottom is in fact about Brandon’s wife’s current campaign for the State Board of Education. Her Dallas Morning News profile is much better than Brandon’s but omits her affiliation with anti-religious bigots. She’s in the video linked below.)

Texas House District 107 has the typical Republican and Democrat candidates. It also has an oddball Libertarian, Brandon Parsons.

I am scratching my head that the Texas Libertarian Party fielded this guy.

First problem: he’s an avowed atheist. That doesn’t work in Texas. Worse, most his Facebook “likes” suggest anti-religious bigotry. His “likes” are at right (assembled from his Facebook profile). Let me explain some code words:

Free-thinkers, freethought, and skeptics refer to bigoted people or belief systems. Not only do they deny the possibility of God’s existence, they think believers are delusional (fast forward to 3:14 in this video of Brandon’s “pastor”–yes, some kind of atheist “church”!).

Center for Inquiry is a freethought group that tries to debunk religion.

Camp Quest is where atheists get their kids indoctrinated with secularist dogma and anti-religion.

The ones he bothered to answer stroll past the subject. For example, on the rainy day fund, he gave this 41 word humdinger of a sentence:

I think it may be reasonable in some of the worst economic times to use a portion of the funds if they can be exceeded with long-term proposals to reduce expenses by a larger amount to avoid returning to these circumstances.

Or how about this meander through the death penalty, brought to you with a 40 word sentence:

Given recent history of releases due to wrongful convictions, the sensible action in the short-term would be a moratorium on the use of the death penalty, and a thorough review of any present death-penalty inmates at minimum before re-instating it.

Huh. Bold proposal. (snicker)

This isn’t communicating. These are sleep aids!

But wait, there’s less! He’s even ideologically inconsistent with his own party.

Libertarians are very anti-government. They believe in dismantling the vast majority of today’s government.

An example: the Libertarian position on schooling is basically “separation of education and state,” that public schools shouldn’t even exist. Tell me, how much of that position is in his treatises on measuring achievement and dropouts?

No, I think the measurement system the state is using impacts that which they are measuring far too greatly to be of much use–far too much class time is devoted specifically to the existing measurement scheme. I understand the desire to measure performance, but if a measurement scheme impacts what you are measuring by more than 5%–maybe a little more if it can be demonstrated that the benefits far outweigh the costs–then it isn’t worth it. Furthermore, one has to consider what incentives are being created, and ensure that the incentives create the desired behavior. Measuring teacher and school performance isn’t an easy task, I admit, so it’s one that requires careful consideration before implementing. I think the best approach here is to take a timeout and research new or existing alternatives.

…

We should face the realization that a large portion of even the students who graduate do not go to college, and take steps to ensure that our education system is relevant to those students as well.

(Zzzz….)

(Zzzz…)

(snort) wha… what? Oh, I fell asleep. What did you say?

Let me summarize with two points:

First, don’t waste your vote on Brandon Parsons. He’s an atheist and possibly an anti-religious bigot, he can’t communicate as one should expect of a politician, he apparently doesn’t take voter education seriously, and he’s ideologically inconsistent with his own party. Voting for Brandon is not “making a statement”, it’s just squandering your vote. If you want to make a statement, participate in the Republican or Democrat primaries in spring 2012!

Second, the Libertarian Party doesn’t field quality candidates. The Libertarian Party is a dumping ground for disaffected um….well, I don’t know what Brandon is! But it’s apparently not where you go to find electable candidates!

Disagree? Check out his campaign site at http://www.parsonstx.com/. Oops, sorry, he hasn’t taken down his prior campaign site yet.

A family member and I may be much of why the United Methodist Church withdrew from the Oct. 2 Democrat One Nation Rally. I am proud that, per the Weekly Standard, the UMC was “the only major group publicly to withdraw from the rally.”

On Thursday, Sept. 30, 2 days before the rally, a family member tipped me off that the United Methodist Church’s General Board on Church and Society (GBCS) endorsed the rally.

I was skeptical at first, pushing back on the relative. But later that day, I called Wayne Rhodes, the GBCS’s Director of Communications. Wayne played the “what, me?” card, sticking to a ridiculous notion that this is a nonpartisan rally. At one point he even denied that NPR repeatedly characterized this as a left wing political rally. It took many minutes to explain to him that a pig with lipstick is still a pig–even if there is some alleged factual basis for the rally’s nonpartisanship, it is a de facto Democrat rally. Therefore, the United Methodist Church’s name should not be part of it.

Wayne’s bio suggests a good deal of journalistic experience. All I can figure is he is intentionally playing fast and loose with the truth, like a political press secretary whose boss is in hot water. Not like an employee of a church.

I was so frustrated with Wayne’s obfuscation that I send this email a few hours later. It went to the GBCS’s director Jim Winkler, CCing Wayne and also Mark W. Harrison, the GBCS employee who sought the UMC’s endorsement:

James,

I have a bone to pick with you.

I am a lifelong United Methodist, and I am embarrassed and angry that the General Board on Church and Society, which you direct, recklessly and naively lent the UMC’s name to a left wing, partisan pep rally (per http://www.onenationworkingtogether.org/partners).

Let me deconstruct this statement:

“left wing, partisan pep rally”

It doesn’t take much to read through the event’s marketing. The One Nation Working Together Rally is a national-scope, left wing, Democrat-supporting, partisan pep rally. It is a knee-jerk reaction to the recent Tea Party-aligned, Republican-supporting, conservative, Glenn Beck event.

Guess what? Almost all of the pep rally’s “endorsing organizations” (http://www.onenationworkingtogether.org/partners) are left wing or Democrat groups. Some are even notorious extremists like the Communist Party. Only a small remainder are prima facie politically unaligned.

“naive”

Over the phone yesterday, GBCS communications director Wayne Rhodes argued that this is simply a nonpartisan event about social justice. He said that one of your employees sought GBCS endorsement because he claimed this pep rally is about nonpartisan principles. He passionately denied that the media portrayed this as a Democrat-aligned or even left wing event.

Um, what? Is the GBCS that naive?

Let’s suppose the impossible is true, that this is really nonpartisan? Two important facts:

This pep rally is perceived, portrayed, and organized as a partisan, left wing event.

Endorsing a highly partisan pep rally links one with the rally’s partisan flavor.

These facts matter a lot more than a legalistic, disingenuous appeal to the pep rally’s alleged nonpartisan roots.

“reckless”

Given that the UMC laity has diverse political views and that the denomination is bleeding members, the UMC should be wary of wedges that could alienate members.

The GBCS was reckless to create a wedge over non-church, partisan politics. Supporting a Democrat-aligned, left wing pep rally does not serve Jesus Christ or stop the UMC’s membership losses. It just feeds political machines and drives away members and prospects.

Alienated members may include those who don’t agree with left wing solutions to social ills. It may also include those, from any political stripe, who agree with the spirit of tax law that separates charities from partisan events. (Yes, I know, “on paper” this is not a “Democrat” pep rally, and the tax law has some loopholes, but let’s not get into disingenuous legalism again…)

Conclusion

By now, you may think I want the GBCS to also endorse Republican or conservative events. No, in fact, I don’t. Several of the Republican party’s official stances also counter the UMC’s social principles.

I want the GBCS to stay out of partisan events. I don’t want my own church creating wedges between me and my Christian brothers and sisters of any partisan leaning!

Further, I want the GBCS to be open to the idea that what separates the left and right are often not the goals (fairness, equality, peace, liberty, etc.). The difference is in the methods to achieve these outcomes.

I’m confused why the GBCS didn’t have checks and balances to prevent this error? It makes me question what you guys are doing up there. What other partisan political events are you endorsing? Does the General Conference need to audit the GBCS?

Aren Cambre
Dallas, TX

I also CCed my local minister and Bishop.

By this time, my relative had found emails of United Methodist friends and many Bishops and started sending similar appeals to them.

I got no response, but that was unsurprising. Wayne made it clear they were going to cling to delusional notions about the rally’s partisanship.

The day before, Oct. 1, as I was about to start some of my own email activism, I found that the GBCS rescinded their endorsement! I was relieved, but the news release infuriated me. They still clung to their dishonest claptrap. For example:

“The board is disturbed by some of the overtly political and partisan statements issued by organizers of the march.” Um, it was political and partisan from the beginning!? Hello!?

“These goals are non-controversial and consistent with scripture and the United Methodist Social Principles.” and other garbage defending the rally. Look, it was a political rally. The non-partisan roots are a farce. Quit it!

“the rally was initiated by respected civil rights organizations such as the NAACP … [but] [t]he list of endorsers, however, grew to include a variety of organizations that created enormous, unnecessary controversy.” Well, yeah, aligning with the Communist Party doesn’t help things, BUT THAT’S STILL NOT THE PROBLEM! Do you really believe that a national-scope, Washington Mall rally, pimped exclusively by Democrat fronts like the NAACP or or radical left groups, could possibly be nonpartisan? Seriously?

“…the ‘One Nation Working Together’ rally has been portrayed by opponents as a counter-demonstration to Mr. Beck’s event.” NPR and the mainstream media are opponents of the American left? HAHAHAHA!

“GBCS does not support a statement reported in the Sept. 30 issue of The Washington Post made by a key organizer of the event. He said, ‘We aren’t the alternative to the tea party; we are the antidote.'” Another example of insane incompetence–is the GBCS really that blind to the unrelenting media characterization of One Nation, that started way before Sept. 30? It didn’t start the day I called Wayne!

“Unfortunately, discourse within the United States has grown increasingly divisive. Perhaps more troubling, discourse within The United Methodist Church has taken on a very un-Christ-like tone. E-mails and phone calls made to the board by clergy and laity have been shocking in their vitriol.” Oh, that’s wonderful, throw stones at fellow United Methodists because they called you out on your incompetence. Yeah, that’s “turning the other cheek”!

“The ‘One Nation Working Together’ rally began with a clean, clear message consistent with the social teachings of The United Methodist Church.” NEVER, NEVER, NEVER. This started out as a partisan political pep rally. It was NEVER intended to be some nonpartisan event. Any alleged nonpartisanship is a thin legal fiction necessary to pass through tax law.

“We pray that the rally will overcome the misguided controversies surrounding it and deliver hope for the change their presence does endorse.” That was the final statement. Yet another “we don’t get it” statement: the problem, from the beginning, is that the GBCS endorsed a political rally and declined to admit it.

I wrote another email to Jim, et al, also copying the two United Methodist bishops who serve as president and vice president of the GBCS’s board:

However, I strongly object to the retraction’s tone. I don’t appreciate that in it, you are defensive, still cling to tired legalisms, and cast stones at concerned United Methodists.

Since when is passionately disagreeing with GBCS’s error the same as “very un-Christ-like tone” or “shocking … vitriol”?

Could you help me understand how any of these are Christ-like?

Your Communications Director adamantly denying that the media portrayed this event as partisan, even though he admitted he listens to the same NPR radio news as me, which repeatedly covered the pep rally’s overt partisanship?

Clinging to tired legalisms, such as how the retraction repeats the alleged nonpartisan basis for this event. (The Gospels say a lot about legalism…)

That your staff tarnished the UMC’s good name because they declined to perform due diligence, failing to observe the terribly obvious: a national-scope rally, set up by left wing and Democrat groups, especially in a season of intense political scrutiny of the American left, will have thick partisan overtones.

That you waited until the 11th hour to withdraw, only after direct media attention of the GBCS endorsement, despite weeks of media coverage of the rally’s partisan purpose.

Again, I appreciate that you did the right thing and rescinded the endorsement. But I am disappointed that your retraction shows hostility, obstinance, and defensiveness instead of humility, acceptance, and straightforwardness. That is disappointing.

Aren Cambre
Dallas, TX

Heads should roll. The GBCS, as a body, was dishonest. It may be incompetent, too.

Furthermore, if the GBCS’s de facto purpose is to shove the United Methodist Church towards a certain partisan alignment, the entire board needs to be shut down. Our resources are too precious to waste on nonsense.

The Texas GOP’s extreme social stances are a losing strategy for two reasons.

1: They are paradoxically liberal. If we fully legislated the Texas GOP platform’s social stances, we would make the government the moral compass, usurping the proper role of the church and individual wisdom. (It’s as if we want to reverse the Protestant Reformation, but that’s an issue for another blog post!)

2: They turn away mainstream conservatives and moderates. This is proven by two polls:

First is a recent Gallup Poll. It finds that conservatives are the largest single voting bloc. But they are neither a majority nor “very conservative”:

Second is a Pew survey, interpreted by Texas Monthly editor Paul Burka to show that the Republican party “hemorrhaging” voters. Indeed, party affiliation is:

36% independent

35% Democrat

23% Republican

If the Republican Party was the mainstream conservative party, it would have more affiliates than Democrats.

But no: the Republican party is hemorrhaging voters because of its extreme social stances. Per the Pew survey: “[independents] more closely parallel the views of Democrats … on the most divisive core beliefs on social values, religion and national security.”

Juxtaposing these surveys, an inescapable conclusion: Extreme conservatism, especially extreme social conservatism, is a losing strategy.

Any winning strategy for Republican domination must not alienate moderates; we can’t win without them.

I am a Republican. I am pro-life. I believe that every abortion is a tragedy. High abortion rates speaks poorly on how society values fragile lives.

I believe abortions should never substitute for effective birth control, and I support banning those abortions. I respect individual privacy, but human life is sacrosanct. Stopping life is not a casual matter.

That’s my limit; I support no further restrictions. That means I would not seek to prevent abortions that:

Protect the mother from serious medical risk or death.

Terminate pregnancies from non-consensual sex.

Terminate pregnancies with fetuses with conditions incompatible with life.

You may ask, “So do you want all these people to have abortions?” If the pregnancy endangers the mother’s life and abortion can help, yes, save the mom. If the fetus cannot possibly survive, there’s no life to be preserved, so the mom should have the right to avoid pregnancy’s risks and costs if she chooses.

The nonconsensual sex part is tough. In an earlier post, I commented on the perception of men telling women what to do with their bodies. I hope and pray rape victims will keep their babies, but I don’t wish to force societal or collective judgment on rape victims. Rape-induced pregnancy introduces too many moral traps to have a decisive argument.

Abortion is a tragedy, but I see no rational case for a total abortion ban.